CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Fractional Flow Reserve

Abstract

Recommended Article

Angiographic versus functional severity of coronary artery stenoses in the FAME study fractional flow reserve versus angiography in multivessel evaluation Post-stenting fractional flow reserve vs coronary angiography for optimisation of percutaneous coronary intervention: TARGET-FFR trial Experience With an On-Site Coronary Computed Tomography-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve Algorithm for the Assessment of Intermediate Coronary Stenoses Fractional flow reserve in clinical practice: from wire-based invasive measurement to image-based computation Diagnostic Performance of the Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio: Comparison With Fractional Flow Reserve Diagnostic accuracy of instantaneous wave free-ratio in clinical practice Clinical Relevance of Functionally Insignificant Moderate Coronary Artery Stenosis Assessed by 3-Vessel Fractional Flow Reserve Measurement Angiographic quantitative flow ratio-guided coronary intervention (FAVOR III China): a multicentre, randomised, sham-controlled trial

Original ResearchVolume 71, Issue 14, April 2018

JOURNAL:J Am Coll Cardiol. Article Link

Lack of Association Between Heart Failure and Incident Cancer

S Selvaraj, DL Bhatt, B Claggett et al. Keywords: heart failure; incident; cancer; malignancy; tumor

Abstract


BACKGROUND - Several recent studies have suggested an increased cancer risk among patients with heart failure (HF). However, these studies are constrained by limited size and follow-up, lack of comprehensive data on other health attributes, and adjudicated cancer outcomes.

OBJECTIVE - This study sought to determine whether HF is associated with cancer incidence and cancer-specific mortality.

METHODS - The study assembled a cohort from the Physicians’ Health Studies I and II, 2 randomized controlled trials of aspirin and vitamin supplements conducted from 1982 to 1995 and from 1997 to 2011, respectively, that included annual health evaluations and determination of cancer and HF diagnoses. In the primary analysis, the study excluded participants with cancer or HF at baseline and performed multivariable-adjusted Cox models to determine the relationship between HF and cancer, modeling HF as a time-varying exposure. In a complementary analysis, the study used the landmark method and identified cancer-free participants at 70 years of age, distinguishing between those with and without HF, and likewise performed Cox regression. Sensitivity analyses were performed at 65, 75, and 80 years of age.

RESULTS - Among 28,341 Physicians’ Health Study participants, 1,420 developed HF. A total of 7,363 cancers developed during a median follow-up time of 19.9 years (25th to 75th percentile: 11.0 to 26.8 years). HF was not associated with cancer incidence in crude (hazard ratio: 0.92; 95% confidence interval: 0.80 to 1.08) or multivariable-adjusted analysis (hazard ratio: 1.05; 95% confidence interval: 0.86 to 1.29). No association was found between HF and site-specific cancer incidence or cancer-specific mortality after multivariable adjustment. Results were similar when using the landmark method at all landmark ages.

CONCLUSIONS - HF is not associated with an increased risk of cancer among male physicians.